Patriot's Blog Archives for 2021-03

The Border Debates' Missing Argument Part 1

The border debates' missing argument?

 

While an administration’s hardline approach to immigration has focused on dealing with an influx of migrants along the southern border, which Trump in speeches and tweets also ties to an influx of drugs and crime, he did not addressed a central part of the violence that drives the displacement of many families in Mexico and Central America: guns, the majority of which flow from the U.S. to Mexico.

Mexico’s murder rate is at an all-time high, according to that nation’s official figures. In 2018, the Mexican government recorded more than 30,000 intentional murders. A majority of those murders — 20,005 — were committed with firearms, according to government data.

Twenty percent of all homicides in Mexico last year were related to organized crime, according to a study from the University of San Diego, though the study noted the estimate was conservative and the figure was likely higher. The violence has been largely concentrated in drug trafficking regions in the northwest and the Pacific Coast region. The country, which has a population of 125 million, had more than 10,000 homicides recorded between January and May of this year.

Research shows that a majority of guns in Mexico can be traced to the U.S. A report from the U.S Government Accountability Office showed that 70 percent of guns seized in Mexico by Mexican authorities and submitted for tracing have a U.S. origin. This percentage remains consistent, said Bradley Engelbert, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And the Trump administration has recently taken steps to ease rules on gun exports, which enables manufacturers to sell guns in Mexico and Central America countries.

A report from the Center of American Progress found that the United States was the primary source of weapons used in crime in Mexico and Canada. Other countries in Central America can also trace a large proportion of guns seized in crimes to the United States. For example, the report found that from 2014 to 2016, 49 percent of crime guns seized in El Salvador were originally purchased in the U.S. In Honduras, 45 percent of guns recovered in crime scenes were traced to the United States as well.

“The U.S. should immediately stop the flow of guns and bulk cash across its southern border,” Sarukhan wrote in a tweet.

Still, the gun trafficking issue has largely been overshadowed by other immigration policy debates.

 

This will conclude the first part of this blog and will be broken into a series. Look forward to next week were we continue the conversation that is often missed, thank you for reading.

Why are we blaming guns, not killers?

Why are we blaming guns, not killers?

 

It’s an interesting phenomenon that, when looking at murders, most of the time the crime is rightly blamed on the murderer. The only exception to that seems to be when it comes to firearms.  When it’s learned that a gun was used in a crime, many hide their eyes, cover their ears, close their minds and just keep repeating, “We need more gun control.” In fact, a survey from Rasmussen Reports indicates that one-third of people think that access to firearms is more at fault than the killers themselves.

Rasmussen’s telephone and online survey of 1,000 American adults asked the question point-blank: “In crimes involving use of a gun, which is more to blame—the shooter or the availability of guns in America?” An astonishing 31 percent of people placed the blame on an inanimate object, the gun, and not the person pulling the trigger. Unsurprisingly, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans—51 percent to 13 percent—to blame the object over the person.

It’s worth asking” Do these same people think access to vehicles is more at fault than drivers? Are knives more at fault than stabbers? If not, why? What makes guns different?

Actually, what makes guns different is simply a political agenda. Liberals have long been on a mission to obliterate guns, the Constitution and freedom in America. Gun control has never been about guns; it has always been about controlling people.

The only difference today is that anti-gunners are openly admitting their end game. People who blame the gun over the killer aren’t looking for real solutions. They’re simply furthering an agenda.

 

What is Critical Race Theory (CRT)

CRT was an intellectual development in the late 1970s and early 1980s in which some scholars, perturbed by what they perceived as a loss of momentum in the movement for racial equality, began to doubt that the constitutional and legal system itself had the capacity for change.

This criticism mirrored a Marxist attack long voiced in academia: that the Constitution had been a capitalist document incapable of allowing for the redistributionist change necessary to create a more equal world. To create a more equal world, the Constitution and the legal system would have to be endlessly criticized – hence critical theory – and torn down from within. 

The Marxist criticism of the system was called critical theory; the racial criticism of the system was therefore called Critical Race Theory.

So, what does CRT believe? In their primer, Critical Race Theory, Richard Delgado (one of the movement’s founders) and Jean Stefancic set out some basic principles:

  1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational”;
  2. “Our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”

When taken together, these principles have serious ramifications. First, they suggest that legal rules that stand for equal treatment under law – i.e. the 14th Amendment – can remedy “only the most blatant forms of discrimination.” The system is too corrupted, too based on the notion of white supremacy, for equal protection of the laws to ever be a reality. The system must be made unequal in order to compensate for the innate racism of the white majority.

Second, these principles suggest that even measures taken to alleviate unequal protection under the law – for example, the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education – were actually taken for nefarious purposes, to serve white interests. This is exactly what Derrick Bell believed: he said that Brown had only been decided in order to prevent the Soviet Union from using American racial inequality as a public relations baton to wield against the white-majority United States.

There is some internal conflict within CRT, though. For example, some CRT writers seem to take the Martin Luther King, Jr. line that race is arbitrary, a social construct; the majority, however, suggest that minorities have a special status in society, and something unique to bring to the table. As Delgado and Stefancic write, “Minority status, in other words, brings with a presumed competence to speak about race and racism.”

So here’s what we’re left with, in simple terms. Racism cannot be ended within the current system; the current system is actually both a byproduct of and a continuing excuse for racism. Minority opinions on the system are more relevant than white opinions, since whites have long enjoyed control of the system, and have an interest in maintaining it. This is a deeply disturbing theory. It is damaging both to race relations and to the legal and Constitutional order.

 

Do Away with QaNoN

I pray that no one in this group is following QAnon Reports, the Left is having a field day with those false prophecies. It's past time to refocus and come up with a valid plan forward.

Our fight is not behind us. It's in front of us, and we must retool and put away the child's play and wishful thinking. Let's put away the foolish talk and post and come up with solutions to make this country more reflective of us and our values.

The more you exhaust your time and energy on foolishness, the more heavy lifting it will take to move toward our agenda and interest.